Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK56320, Jan G. Levine, Judge.
John L. Dodd & Associates and John Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Jeanette Cauble, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
WOODS, Acting P. J.
SUMMARY
This is a father’s appeal from an order terminating parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. (All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
C.M. was born in 2006. His sister K. had already come to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services in 2004 when their mother M. suffered an emotional breakdown, threatened to kill K. and was involuntarily hospitalized. C.M.’s father C. and M. also had a history of domestic violence. Their first child together (I.) was born two months after the dependency court took jurisdiction over K. Both K. and I. were declared dependents and reunification services were ordered. C. failed to reunify with I. and a permanent plan hearing was set for C.M.’s siblings.
C. is not K.’s father. M. is not a party to this appeal.
When C.M. was about two weeks old, the Department removed him from C. and M. The petition (as ultimately amended) alleged C. and M. had a domestic violence history, C. had a history of substance abuse and C. and M. had failed to reunify with C.M.’s siblings. (§ 300.) The dependency court ordered C.M. detained and ordered reunification services for C. and M. The Department reported it was considering a paternal aunt (Maria S.) who lived in Southgate for placement, but she was disabled and caring for three children already so she was no longer under consideration by the time of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing. C. and M. said there was another relative in Riverside who might be able to take C.M. but they had not provided this relative’s information.
The dependency court ordered the Department to consider Maria S. and also ordered a Family Group Decision Making meeting to address a relative placement for C.M.
In March, C. and M. pled to the amended petition, and the dependency court ordered reunification services. In April, C.M. was placed in a specialized medical foster home with Cheryl C.
By the six-month review hearing in September, C. was in custody and sentenced to two years in state prison for domestic violence. The dependency court addressed C.M.’s considerable medical needs. He needed to see three specialists (in renal function, neurology and cardiology). The court ordered a further report and set a contested review hearing.
In its report for the further hearing in September, the Department requested termination of reunification services. C.M. was seeing a cardiologist, neurologist, gastroenterologist and genetic specialist and participating in physical and occupational therapy to address gross motor, cognitive, communicative and social delays.
On September 20, the dependency court terminated C.’s and M.’s reunification services and set a permanent plan hearing for January 25, 2007.
In its report for the January permanent plan hearing, the Department advised the court that C.M. had been assessed to be adoptable and recommended a continuance to find an adoptive home. C.M. suffered from the following medical conditions: microcephaly, hypertonia, global developmental delay, a history of failure to thrive, RSV pneumonia, acidosis, spina bifida occulta, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, torticollis and reflux. He was at the developmental level of a three-month-old. The matter was continued to March.
C. was incarcerated at the time.
At the time of the March status review hearing, C. was still incarcerated; none of C.M.’s relatives were visiting. C.M. was receiving weekly Regional Center services and continued to treat with several medical specialists.
At the time of the continued permanent plan hearing in June, the Department reported C.M., still in his special medical placement with Cheryl C., continued to receive extensive medical and Regional Center services. C. was out of prison and the social worker had scheduled a visit for him, but he did not visit C.M. No other family members had visited C.M. Cheryl C. had indicated her willingness to care for C.M. until the age of four or so but was not interested in adoption.
The Department reported that the social worker received a call in April from C.M.’s paternal aunt Maria M., who lived in Maryland. She said her brother C. had told her C.M. was up for adoption. Although she did not know C.M. and had had no contact with him, she said she was willing to adopt C.M. She was aware he had special needs and developmental delays.
The Department says it is unclear whether Maria S. and Maria M. are the same person but this does not appear to be the case as their full names are set forth in the record and other information in the record establishes these women are two separate people, such as the fact Maria M. had reportedly lived in Maryland for 19 years while Maria S. lived in the Los Angeles area.
The Department began assessing Maria M. for an adoptive placement. She was 32, single and working as an insurance agent. The social worker reported concern that Maria M. seemed “a bit anxious” and “not sure about what to do.” She said she would “like it better if she was to become [C.M.’s] legal guardian and not adopt” him because she felt her brother C. would “get his life together later on” and hoped he would be able to obtain custody of C.M., but said she would be willing to adopt if guardianship was “not appropriate.” She had no relationship with C.M., but planned a visit in July.
The Department did not recommend a referral pursuant to the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC) to Maryland because of Maria M.’s preference for guardianship and the Department’s belief adoption was the appropriate plan. The Department requested a further continuance to find an adoptive home. The dependency court ordered an ICPC referral.
For the status hearing in September, the Department reported that the ICPC with Maryland had been initiated for Maria M., but no further information had been received. Maria M. was having weekly phone conversations with Cheryl C. regarding C.M. but said Cheryl C. had not allowed her to visit in July. Cheryl C. said she had proposed a morning visit but had not received a call back from Maria M. The social worker facilitated a conference call to assist with further telephone contact between Maria M. and Cheryl C. At that time, Maria M. asked Cheryl C. for money to help her fly back to see C.M. in Los Angeles. Cheryl C. had reported that Maria M. did not seem to understand C.M. had special needs and seemed “fixat[ed]” on whether C.M. would be able to walk.
C. was incarcerated again.
In a later phone call (in August), the social worker told Maria M. the ICPC request had been received and advised her that, since C.M.’s case was “non-federal,” she would be responsible for finding services and applying for financial assistance for him in Maryland. Maria M. responded, “That is a huge part for having to go thr[ough] that, I need to know more about what this involves.... That is going to be a deciding factor whether I want to adopt him or not.” In a phone call with Cheryl C., Maria M. asked about receiving assistance for a bed, drawers and a car seat for traveling with C.M.
C.M. continued to treat with his many specialists. He had been diagnosed with cerebral palsy and had started seeing an orthopedist as his feet and legs turned in.
The permanent plan hearing was continued to January 2008. C. was in state prison. The Department continued to recommend against Maria M. as a placement for C.M. The ICPC coordinator sent correspondence to Maryland inquiring as to the delay and status regarding the home study for Maria M. In June, the social worker had written Maria M., notifying her of the recommendation to enroll in parenting classes for developmentally delayed children, and in December, wrote again, indicating that she still had not heard back from Maria M. regarding whether she had enrolled in these classes. “Please be advised that it is imperative that you enroll in a parenting course focusing on special needs children as it was recommended by the adoption and permanency resource division placement and recruitment unit social worker....”
As of September, Maria M.’s calls to Cheryl C. were no longer consistent and, as of mid-November, had stopped altogether. The social worker contacted Maria M. in December to see whether she was still interested in adopting C.M. Maria M. acknowledged she had stopped calling Cheryl C. She said she still wanted to adopt C.M. but had to “look at the finances and the time that this process is going to take.” She said she did not “feel comfortable with just knowing a little about” C.M.; she wanted information about C.M.’s condition in writing instead of just hearing about it. The social worker told Maria M. there was someone else who “really wish[ed]” to adopt C.M. who had been visiting him. Maria M. said she felt “happy” and “would really like to see someone adopt him if they are really one hundred percent committed to him.” She said she was in the process of getting married and would be married in April.
As of the status review in March, the Department recommended Maria M. be disqualified as a prospective adoptive placement as she had not completed any special education classes for developmentally delayed children. The Department was considering Cheryl C.’s friend Mrs. B. as a prospective adoptive placement. Mrs. B. had previously adopted through the Department. C.M. had spent more than two years in foster care—almost the entire time with Cheryl C. C.M. had gotten knee braces and started walking.
At the time of the continued permanent plan hearing in May, C. was still in custody and waived his appearance. C.M.’s medical needs continued. He was not verbal, but was able to show affection and form attachments. The Department said C.M. and Mrs. B. had established a relationship. She visited him weekly. When the social worker observed one of these visits, she saw C.M. walk to Mrs. B., wanting to be picked up. He spent most of the time on her lap. The social worker said C.M. showed an attachment to her as evidenced by him “finding comfort, reassurance and encouragement in her presence.” The hearing was continued to complete Mrs. B.’s home study.
For the continued permanent plan hearing in September, the Department reported Mrs. B.’s home study had been approved in May. She was a family friend of Cheryl C., had been visiting C.M. from the inception of his placement with her and had an ongoing relationship with him. He had been having overnight and weekend visits and was “comfortable and secure” in Mrs. B.’s home according to the social worker who had visited several times. Mrs. B. was a University professor with two teenagers living at home and two adult children. They were excited to have C.M. become a member of their family. Mrs. B. had adopted other special needs children in the past and was committed to and comfortable caring for C.M. She understood she would be completely responsible for C.M. legally and financially.
C. was not brought from prison for the hearing so it was continued for his presence. C.’s attorney told the court Maria M. had been approved through the ICPC and had been taking parenting classes. He said she was eager to adopt. The court ordered a supplemental report regarding Maria M. for the continued hearing in October.
The record does not substantiate this assertion.
The social worker spoke with Maria M. (now married) who said she and her husband would appear at the October hearing to let the court know they wanted to care for C.M. Mrs. B. agreed to facilitate a visit between C.M. and Maria M. and was open to contact between C.M. and Maria M. after parental rights were terminated if it was in C.M.’s best interest. The Department further reported Maryland authorities would not be able to initiate an adoptive ICPC referral for Maria M. until parental rights were terminated.
C. waived his appearance for the October 2008 hearing. Maria M. and Mrs. B. both appeared. C.’s attorney (as well as C.M.’s) requested a continuance to consider Maria M. for placement. The dependency court noted the Department’s reports of Maria M.’s “unwillingness to commit,” but observed that, in any event, regardless of who would adopt C.M. (and it appeared at that point it would be Mrs. B.), parental rights would need to be terminated.
The dependency court heard from both Maria M. and her husband. Maria M. said she had always been interested in adoption, the social worker misunderstood her and the system had failed her. The court agreed what Maria M. described was “frustrating and unfair” and indicated it would have pursued the ICPC if the information had been different, but said: “We’ve been trying to move on with the adoption for a year,” yet “no one spoke up.”
The court terminated parental rights, noting this simply freed C.M. for adoption. Maria M. could still pursue her request to adopt C.M.
C.’s attorney objected that termination would likely sever C.’s relationship with C.M. as well as C.M.’s potential relationship with siblings and family members. Upon the court’s inquiry, he acknowledged this was not an “exception under the law.”
C. appeals.
DISCUSSION
According to C., he appeals from the order terminating his parental rights. His argument, however, is limited to the issues of whether the dependency court abused its discretion in denying his request for a continuance of the hearing to consider placement with the paternal aunt and in its compliance with the relative placement preference under section 361.3, subdivision (a).
C. lacks standing to challenge the dependency court’s order in this regard because his interests are not prejudiced by this order. A parent’s interest is in reunification. Here, reunification services had been terminated more than two years earlier (in September 2006). The dependency court’s order denying the request to continue the hearing on the termination of parental rights in order to consider placement with the paternal aunt does not adversely affect that interest. (Cesar V. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1035.) C. does not identify more than a nominal interest in the consequence of the court’s denial of the requested continuance, and any prejudicial effect is merely speculative. “An appellant cannot urge errors which affect only another party who does not appeal.” (In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261.) Inasmuch as C. is not aggrieved by the order he challenges, this court is without jurisdiction to consider his claim.
C. “acknowledges courts have found a parent to lack standing to raise th[e] issue of relative placement. (See In re Gary P. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 875, 876-877; In re Dev[i]n M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1540.)” He cites other cases in which standing is not addressed which, in his view, “suggest” or “imply” standing is “appropriate.” Cases are not authority for propositions not considered. (Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 46 Cal.4th 106, 127.)
Contrary to C.’s characterization, the record does not establish the dependency court believed it lacked discretion to continue the hearing but rather it concluded there was no reason to continue it.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: ZELON, J. JACKSON, J.